~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

Just Wars?

Pope Francis meets migrants at the Moria refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, Saturday April 16, 2016. Pope Francis travelled Saturday to Greece for a brief but provocative visit to meet with refugees at a detention center as the European Union implements a controversial plan to deport them back to Turkey. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

I was listening to a lecture by Lord Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury on the theme of the ‘Just War’ and thought I’d share some of his reflections.

He argues that when the idea was formulated it made a sort of sense – wars tended to be relatively small scale and fought between armies. Yes, civilians, as ever, got in the way and suffered from depredations, but battles, however bloody, were usually brief and had a determined outcome when one sovereign called time because he did not want his throne to be further threatened – or because the victor had dethroned him. Now, civilians are not just hit as a by product of the conflict, but are often deliberate targets, and, as we have seen in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, they can last for years, with dreadful atrocities – and no determined outcome.

Just War theory said that war was justified by a defence against the aggressor, but that was in an era when we did not have the diplomatic and peace-keeping resources which now exist in an international scale; the emphasis now must be on the defence of the innocent. Can wars be fought in a way which avoid mass slaughter now? The 1949 Geneva convention provided protection for the vulnerable, but every modern war has seen that convention broken. The old defence that soldiers who commit atrocities were ‘only obeying orders’ has not been accepted since Nuremberg – but given the devastating effects of many modern weapons is it possible to use them without committing atrocities?

If we take the most difficult modern example – ISIS – even the current Archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that it is so evil that we should be willing to bomb them, but then found it, as so many of us do, necessary to include so many caveats that it almost amounts to saying that in practice it would be impossible. But it seems to me that however much we might want wars not to exist, they do, and that however much times change, the necessity of fighting to protect those who cannot protect themselves remains.

Lord Williams is right that our modern wars can be much more destructive more easily, but of we think about the campaigns of Attila the Hun or Tamur the lame, they devastated whole regions and massacred whole peoples, so I don’t see that much has changed in that respect.

Defining a ‘just war‘ is not necessarily easy. In World War I both sides claimed they were in the right. In the World War II it is easier to see who was in the wrong, but then was it right of the Allies to do things such as the bombing of Dresden? Did the fact that the Nazis had done these things justify our doing them, or were we, as the bishop of Chichester, George Bell, argued at the time, resorting to measures of barbarism ourselves? That did not, I think, make the war not a ‘just’ one, but it did degrade us, and was not worthy of the cause we were fighting for. It is a reminder that even in a good cause, we are not empowered, morally, to do what is wrong.

Of all the signs we are a fallen race, war is the greatest and most obvious. As I work with refugees from the wars in Syria, I am struck by the sheer horror of the experiences these people have been through. Those involved in the war, on all sides, seem to have disregarded any moral sense at all and have resorted to whatever methods of barbarism they thought would win. As it has happened, all these methods have done is to destroy much of their own country and traumatise millions. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy – and bless Pope Francis for his compassion and for highlighting the plight of so many suffering people.

About JessicaHof

Post navigation

22 thoughts on “Just Wars?”

Many very difficult questions here, dearest friend, and very few answers. Lord Williams is, I think, a bit naive here. How else can one defend the innocent save by war? But it’s a bad solution, and must trouble our consciences’ continually.

For the World War II examples, well I admire Bishop Bell, a lot, but given the givens, it’s hard to see how else we could have defeated the Nazis, without handing all of Europe to Stalin. That of course, troubled many, and is part of the reason for the development of ‘smart munitions’ to reduce innocent casualties. But war has always been, and will always be a very imperfect solution, but while evil exists, it must be defended against.

I must say, I admire your work with the refugees immoderately. Truly a good work, dearest friend. 🙂 xx

Indeed. I think much of the problem of Dresden (and it’s important to remember that it was a singular attack) is the continued attack over several days, by both of our air forces, likely beyond the point of reasonableness. By that point is such a war, I suspect it was hard to not do whatever one could, even if the morals of it were a bit lax.

In my experience, which may not be the norm. The people I know that advocates against Just War theory are also proponents of institutionalized social aide, this strikes me as odd.

If you are being beaten in the streets, it would be perfectly acceptable to defend yourself. If someone was being beaten in the streets it would be okay to step in and defend against the aggressor.

In regards to Charity, a person is praised for assisting on a personal level. So Let’s create an institutionalized government agency to aide the entire good of society! However, if Nation X invades and commits genocide to Nation Y. We cannot defend them with our collective resources for the good of society, there’s no just war. Now Nation x had invaded us, again, let us put down our arms.

It appears to be hypocritical.

Now, the problem is that the scenarios are simple and not complex. Moral dilemma’s become more complex to leaders in actual war. If Truman was right and he saved more lives by dropping the atomic bomb, was it a necessary evil? I think Just War doctrine touches on that and says the action was indeed wrong due to the causality of civilians. Furthermore, I reject the notion that wars in the classical age–Middle Ages were more noble. They committed their fair share of atrocities, perhaps on a smaller scale, but due to population the impact was just as great.

Nice thoughts and such pure intentions are lovely goals that men have always entertained; a world at peace and at love without bloodshed, torture, inhumane treatment of their citizens and those who oppose them. The ideas of Utopia never die in the hearts of men. Alas, only words and the desires of peace loving peoples have never defeated the actions of those who ignore any universal good compared with their comparitive and nationalistic aims.

The UN has been supported almost entirely by the Western Europeans who are probably the only peoples on the face of the planet who care about things like the Geneva Convention. The UN for all its bluster has little in the way of success and its resolutions against offending countries are routinely disregarded or violated in full. In fact, everytime a sanction is issued the cry even from our own people is largely one of who gets hurt by these sanctions more than the inocent people; the old and the young, the poor and the uneducated who simply want to live the simple life without political interference and constant threat to the families, religions, ethnic origins or what have you.

When, sanctions are ignored what does the UN do? Does it have the power to refashion a rogue nation into a legitimate power on the world stage which embraces the same desires of peace and unity that peaceful men only dream about? In cease fire cases between factions we have constantly seen the uselessness of the UN Peacekeeping forces who have proven themselves, time and time again, to be of the most corrupt and most unwilling to enforce the sanctions or to deter a single dictator from their goal.

Its a lovely thought, my friend, though humanity has not moved nearly so far in heart and mind as has our weapons of destruction and means to control and to manipulate their populations. Unless we have a resolute stance and strategy to defeat, what could be called murderous criminals, then what is left. It would be nice to be able to go into their nation and lock them up but that is quite impossible and inconceivable especially in the light of our belief that nations do have a right to autonomy up and until they violate the rights and the peoples of countries outside their borders.

Pray for peace, my friend as we all should do and let us hope that some effect might come from these prayers. History seems to not give us a strong indication that things will change though perhaps we have not prayed enough or fervently enough. Until God gives us a victory however, I am sure that we will be where we have always been; in a war between perceived good and evil. Evil will be resisted unless we no longer care whether it succeeds or fails. That evils will occur on each side of a war is something that cannot be stopped but it can be improved and I think it has. For after all we are fallen men by nature and bad men do bad things to one another.

I agree, but it is still better than a free for all – which is the alternative – and don’t forget that in places like Somalia the African countries are taking a big role on the ground. Of course it can’t stop Russia annexing crimea – or us invading Iraq and making a huge mess – but then nothing can do that 🙂

No we can’t. And we are probably in a time where the quality of leadership is one of the lowest caliber that ever walked the planet just when world politics is probably at its most complicated and difficult to grasp. It doesn’t look like this is a good omen for how things will work out for the future of our children. 🙂

I’d like to think that too but looking at the track record it seems we have spent a lot of money for something that has proved, thus far, to be utterly useless. Seems to me that if the UN has had any impact at all it was in helping nations who experienced a national catastrophe, like floods, earthquakes, famine, hurricanes and the like. They do get medical and food relief to these places better than we once did. Sadly, however not everybody is actually putting something in the pot. Seems the US is almost the sole backer at times. But in regards to coalitions who will abide by the sanctions imposed, once again, even our european allies break these sanctions over and over again making them next to useless.

We have gone from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Mutually Assured Economic Destruction (MAED) during the past decades. Both are showing the weakness that this policy has deliviered. We now have rogue nations with nukes who do not care if they destroy their countries on any other country and we have an IMF and Federal Reserve and all the other International Banks fixing money rates, printing money, or digitally printing money which is utterly useless. We are being held together by fear rather than trust of our fungible, fiat currencies. I love the motto on our money and indeed In God We Trust is probably all we got left; it sure isn’t the Federal Reserve, the economic reports from countries or the IMF who I have trust in, that is for sure. We live in a house of cards both in regards to our safety created by MAD and our economic safety creaated by MAED. Both will explode and implode respectively some day. The only question is when.

We would be wrong to abandon the principles of just war, which would be akin to committing suicide as to condemn Christians never to have justification to take action as a defensive measure, while also flying in the face of Christian thinking on the matter throughout its most vigorous theological periods. The Bible gives us seeming ‘contradiction’ on the issue of self-defense, and this almost always points to prudence. Use prudence, judge wisely, do not be gripped by passions.

Scale does not alter this calculation, only increases the need for sound judgment. We are in fact obligated to act defensively except in circumstances where higher virtue might be achieved by foregoing such actions.

We have our own right to martyrdom. What I don’t think we have the right to do is sentence our children or indeed the legacy of those behind us to martyrdom on their behalf. This would be every bit as evil as the appropriation of other people’s charity by force.

Mark, your answer brought to mind the Christero War in Mexico. I think we all know what would have happened if we simply let them perform their genocide on the Catholics without fighting back. Viva Christo Rey! 🙂

A good example here is the book of Daniel. Judah got hammered, the Judeans taken into captivity and the result was spreading the Word of God. c/f the fourth chapter of Daniel, which looks to me like the testimony of Nebuchadnezzar, explaining how he came to faith in the Living God.

I recall one bible study where one of the participants (a fellow who wasn’t exactly all there) told us, ‘you know, the good book says that when somebody strikes you, you should turn the other cheek. Somebody struck me this week, and I turned the other cheek’ he announced proudly. We asked ‘and when you turned the other cheek – did he strike you again?’ ‘Well, he couldn’t, because he was flat on the ground.’ While turning the other cheek, it seems that he had also swung a good left hook which had made good contact.

I’m reading “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America” by Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney. http://www.Cheneybook.com

“Former vice president Dick Cheney and former deputy assistant secretary of state Liz Cheney tell the story of the unique role America has played as freedom’s defender since World War II. They explain how presidents from Truman to Bush and from Roosevelt to Reagan safeguarded American power and pre-eminence. They reveal the damage done by President Obama’s determination to diminish America’s role in the world, and they show how America can and must lead again.” (from the website)

All of these American presidents believed that some wars are just. All nations on the earth want America to help solve their problems. Every August some journalist gets their pansies in a wad and starts crying in their soup about our dropping “Little boy” and “Fat man.” It worked! War is hell. Evil must be stopped by whatever means. Then, we hope and pray for mercy.

I use to get all worked up with justifying my nation’s actions. However, there’s historical analysis that indicates the United States didn’t need to drop any bombs. Truman’s claim that 1 million American lives was more or less a made up number.

Of course, the ole’ consensus story could be correct.

What concerns me is the loss of Christianity in Japan when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, home of the largest Cathedral in the Orient. I think it’s important to ask if this ‘evil’ to be eliminated by whatever means necessary? I believe Just War Doctrine to stand against such measures. In fact, I use to defend the bomb being used as an American and also my grandfather being a WWII vet; however, when I read about the history of Christianity in Nagasaki. I believe it’s a position I can no longer suppoert.

The principle can clearly be extended – are there likely to be many conversions to Christianity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya after the American and British interventions there – particularly when Tony Blair blatantly used his ‘Christian’ credentials to justify the decisions to go to war?

Of course 120,000 were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. But then, 213,000 had been killed in the bombings of their cities for the 8 months prior to that. That bombing wouldn’t have ceased before we would invade. When you start counting up how many of theirs and how many of ours would have tbeen killed during an invasion, I think the guestimates were not over the top. Not to mention that the civilians were being trained in Japan to fight and kill us on the streets. It wouldn’t have been a pretty ending if we were to invade and it would have taken years to root them out. Tough decisions needed to be made and they made one. I’m not apologetic for their extremist or radical habit of never surrendering to the last man. That is what was different in the Pacific theater of war compared to the Western theater; they would rather die that let down their god-man emperor that they worshipped.

One more thing to remember is that if Truman had said no to the bomb and the war continued for 2 or 3 more years with great lost of life on both sides, and then the world learned that we had a weapon that could have saved 92% of those lives, guess who would be screaming. You’re correct, all the girlie men.

The just war tradition has been used too often to justify violence, conference participants maintained. As an alternative, the church should place Jesus Christ’s ethic of nonviolence at the core of deliberations about military conflict.

This is a fascinating development and yet another sign of how dramatically things have shifted at the Vatican since Pope Francis ascended to the throne of St. Peter. Though a move away from just war thinking wouldn’t necessarily raise dogmatic or doctrinal issues in the church, it would represent a sharp break not only with the prudential outlook that marked the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI but also with a powerful and influential strand of thinking in the church stretching all the way back to St. Augustine in the fifth century.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris